'Don't run, Al, don't run'

He'd get my vote.

Any credible candidate deserves to run if they want to.

Al should form the independent "Sky is Falling" party. It will advocate the purchase of chad credits to offset the votes he won't get.

What's past is past.

He won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote over six years ago.

We got an incompetent and crooked president instead.

But, when you finally get rid of a lemon, you don't go back and buy the car you were originally comparing the lemon to.

You buy an entirely new model.

Ed,

You hit the nail right on the thumb.

After the "Sky is Falling" party is created, how about we start the "Scientist, Schmientist, What Do They Know?" party.

After that, when McCain loses in the primaries he can go independent with the "Baghdad, It's Safe, No Really!" party.

I'd vote for him, again.

Why would anyone think Obama or Clinton are any better I don't know.

We regularly seem to go through this 'please don't run' kerfuffle over some one or another candidate.

Where is Al (global warming) Gore when we need him to deal with the coldest April in a hundred years?

If he ran, I would vote for him.

I hope Al Gore runs again. The Gaia-worshiping nutroots deserve a spokesman.

8 years of White House experience. Decades of congressional experience. First major politician to speak out against the Iraq War in 2002. Right about global warming. Nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. NONE of the other candidates can claim ANY of those accomplishments. Not one.

Doug,

Are those the same scientists who forecast the coming of a new ice age back in the 70's? Oh, bye the way, what ended the first ice age? You know the one back before people. Was it the dinosaurs driving their suv's or perhaps excess dino-methane warming things up?

Have your scientists answer those questions, if they can find the time to spare while filling out applications for government grants to study global warming. You know the kind of grants that provide big pay checks for endless studies.

One last question. What is the optimum global temperature and when was this magic number acheived?

Ed

My dream ticket is Gore/ Obama. Run, Al, run!!!

The thing about Gore is that you know, at the very least, that he believes in the principles he espouses on the campaign trail or in his movies and books and can intelligently say why they'd be good for the country..

Obama's an empty suit and we know Hillary will simply say or do anything in order to win.

There is more to the government than the presidency. The presidential election is starting to resemble American Idol (those singers wouldn't be able to do anything with a crappy rhythm section/band).

I hope whoever wins the presidency, that they will have Gore in their cabinet. Denial that global warming is happening is just too dangerous...especially if the economy is all one thinks about.

I am waiting for Gore to announce his candidacy, and despite what some critics think, he would leapfrog past the three lightweights currently dominating the airwaves.

What a better combination of accomplished experience, results, and dedication could you ask for? Have we not learned our lesson?

I could see Gore successfully rebuilding US prestige and esteem both home and abroad. I could see Gore successfully reaching agreements with the North Koreans and really striving to make our world a better, safer place. I can also see Gore standing tough in problem situations, especially in the Middle East. I can also see Gore with a solid domestic agenda. I cannot see all of this in any of his opponents.

If we could go through parallel time and relive the last six years, any rational person would have to realize that our domestic and international situations would be much better, and we would have real leadership in Washington.

I just hope he does not get sandbagged again with the phony 'I invented the internet' kind of falsehoods from Y2K. But when real news like Gore physically and monetarily helping Hurricane Katrina victims without seeking any fanfare or publicity while Dubya sits on his hands and does nothing gets un-noticed, it makes me wonder just what exactly we seek in a President, a guy who is proactive and has an arm length of worthy accomplishment, or someone who coasted all his life on his family's name and wallet. True Gore was never no pauper, but his accomplishments are all due to his efforts and ideals. As he said, he is his own man.

This time, I think the voters will see not so much a different Gore, but a clearer, more impassioned, and relaxed Gore.

He gets my vote any day of the week.

Ed,

Like so many, you have none of the answers and all of the questions.

Ed, the jury is in, global warming is for real.

Doug Zook, the jury is NOT in. Thousands of scientists, climatologists and meteorologists say, "NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!"

Hmmm, if so many say "no" to Al Gore, then perhaps the nation does not want the damage he would inflict with his global warming nonsense.

Speaking of Al,I bought the(bad boy) Ford F-250 Super Duty Crew Cab yesterday and I felt bad because my global warming carbon foot-print moved up a few notches. I drove over to the local nursery to buy a few trees to plant,to act as an off-set,but they were closed because of the snow.
Hmmmmmm......
Paulo
PS-A/C is standard,hope I get to try it soon.

John D,

My bad.

I forgot the modifier "credible" to scientists.

Ed-

Your skepticism over global warming and its effects are only acceptable if you have a solid understanding of the relevant science involved.

However it's not fair if you're skeptical because the mass media picked up an early theory (that had not reached scientific consensus) proposed in the 1970's that claimed that we were in the midst of a global cooldown. Theories are often wrong in the early stages - it's part of the process.

But the last 30 years have allowed scientists to gather sufficient evidence to produce a community of experts that are in general agreement - this is no trivial feat!

Ed,

Like so many, you have none of the answers and all of the questions.

Ed, the jury is in, global warming is for real.

Posted by: Doug Zook | Apr 12, 2007 10:21:14 AM

---------

Nice try, but Ed's an idiot.

It's not even worth arguing with halfwits like him and his Fox News brethren. They wouldn't know what science was if it bit them.

These clowns have no respect for the scientific process. They have no clue that peer-reviewed studies even exist.

They got their idiot president and their idiot "news" network and their idiot radio personalities and their idiot columnists, and they're all quite happy being idiots.

Might as well try to explain science to an earthworm.

Thousands of scientists, climatologists and meteorologists say, "NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!"
Posted by: John D | Apr 12, 2007 10:48:29 AM

Do you have any links to back that one up John? Otherwise thats nothing but more empty, meaningless rhetoric. I could also say that thousands of scientists, climatologists & meteorologists say "John D wouldn't know his ass from a hole in the ground". But just because I said it doesn't make it true. Facts, John, find us some facts.

Doug Zook, the jury is NOT in. Thousands of scientists, climatologists and meteorologists say, "NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING!"

Hmmm, if so many say "no" to Al Gore, then perhaps the nation does not want the damage he would inflict with his global warming nonsense.

Posted by: John D | Apr 12, 2007 10:48:29 AM

---

Show me one peer-reviewed article in a respected scientific journal that says global warming isn't manmade.

You're quoting a petition that a bunch of evangelical weathermen, engineers and marginal scientific gadflies signed.

That is not science.

Pea brain.

Where is Al (global warming) Gore when we need him to deal with the coldest April in a hundred years?

Posted by: Shaka | Apr 12, 2007 9:00:48 AM

So Shaka...if we have a wet may will you be building yourself an ark?

we know Hillary will simply say or do anything in order to win.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 12, 2007 9:54:52 AM

Sounds like a pretty apt description of your candidate anymore.

John D and Ed,
Disregard all the science and data that has been accumulated up to this point that supports global warming. Tell us why it is logical to believe that when you add heat trapping gases such as CO2, a byproduct of human activity, into the atmosphere MORE heat would NOT be trapped???

John, Bruce, Shaka, and Doug

There is NOT thousands of scientists debating global warming. THAT IS A BALD FACED LIE that you are continuing. Stop being stupid. You are endagering the life of our planet. Time for you children to close your idiotic pie holes and let the adults clean up your mess. As for us Gaia lovers, proud of it and sick as hell of the crap the rest of you dump on our mother. There is not 1 credible scientist that denies Global Warming, NOT ONE! There are oil company shills out there but any reasonably smart person can see past their BS. Shaka, this was the warmest winter EVER, period. Study up before you repeat the stupidity you learned on FAUX news. And Doug, economically speaking, doing nothing will cost way more, and the new industries built will create jobs and money. Ignorance is the enemy, I wish we treated it as so.

The globalwarmers (a new word) forget,or don't want to admit,that a good part of Canada and what is now the US was covered by an ice sheet one mile thick. It reportedly receded ten thousand years ago, plus or minus a few years. That ice sheet covered most of Wisconsin and maybe parts of Illinois.

This fact compels a person to ask: HOW MANY CARS WERE ON THE ROAD TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO???????

Johnny D,
I assume since your such a credible journalist you fact checked sources from both sides, but I'm not asking for you to tell me which data from An Inconvenient Truth was wrong after you undoubtedly watched it and took notes. Instead I would like a link to a peer reviewed article by one of your scientists, climatologists, or meteorologists. All you've shown us so far are articles from small Ohio newspapers, a quote from weatherman from the Carolinas and studies that haven't been subjected to scrutiny by peers from the scientific community. I need more than trade industry studies that were paid for by the energy megacorporations and not peer reviewed. Thank you Journalism Johnny.

John... "thousands" of scientists say that? C'mon.

However many scientists may say "no man-made global warming", when expressed as a percent of total scientists, they are in an underwhelming minority.

100% of scientists will never agree on anything. Doug is right.. the jury is out on global warming.. that being that enough study has been performed on the subject for a consensus to have been formed... that consensus is that man-influenced Global Warming is "for real".

Doug,

Typical. Ignore legitimate questions. Apparently you have no answers.
To reiterate. What about that ice age that the scientists forecast?
What is the optimum global temperature? When was it acheived?
Perhaps if they are stated twice, you will provide the answers.

Ed

John D,

I asked for 12 last time and your side produced 60. Kudos.

Myself, and others, have literally produced thousands of sceintists and climatologists from NASA, the IPCC, Pew Center and other credible sources to support the man-made GW reality.

Please produce the thousands that you claim. And they better focus on more than the 1% abnormalities in studies.

Keep living in your ten percenter dream world.

Catherine, I don't have a candidate that's mine. I've supported McCain since his last campaign but I'm equally excited about Giuliani and some others. You'll be the first loon to know when I make up my mind.

This guy has a good idea. Al should buy Chrysler. He and David Blood have a private equity group that could do it, known in Washington as "Blood and Gore."

http://www.mlive.com/business/statewide/rick_haglund/index.ssf?/base/business-0/1176243004147020.xml&coll=1

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 and would have liked to in 2004, but now he is purely a one-issue candidate. I'd rather see him as Secretary of Energy or Interior, somewhere that he could put his intense focus to good use.
I'm a Richardson supporter, but I'd vote for almost anyone over Hillary. She's the George W. Bush of this primary-- money, famous name and weak qualifications-- plus she's as unlikeable as Kerry. And what message does it send to young women that our first serious contender for a woman president got there through marriage and spending years being (so she claims) the woman behind the man...

Catherine, I don't have a candidate that's mine. I've supported McCain since his last campaign but I'm equally excited about Giuliani and some others. You'll be the first loon to know when I make up my mind.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 12, 2007 11:53:36 AM

Wow, McCain must really be done if even Jeff is abandoning the sinking ship!

Why haven't you come on over to the Iraq threads today to explain McCain's brilliant anaylsis of the situation in Baghdad to us, Jeff?

Run, Al, Run!

I've met Al Gore and he is incredibly smart and a fine human being. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. The problem isn't with Al, it's the system that's out of whack. When we asked him if he'd run again, he shook his head and said "It's so toxic now".

It doesn't seem America can elect a man of high integrity anymore. Or the one's with integrity can't bring in enough money. That to me says more about the American people than anything. We'd rather sit in front of the TV watching American Idol than paying attention to what's going on in our own country and the rest of the world.

We truly are becoming the "stupid Americans" as we are viewed by much of the world these days.

Congrats libs and the rest of the scientific consensus crowd, it took a few dozen posts to call someone espousing the opposing viewpoint an idiot.
By the way, there is no such thing a scientific consensus. Theories are proposed, tested, retested, debunked and accepted constantly. Then the process begins anew as other theories are proposed. If 51% or 91% of scientists or anyone else believe something is true, this does not necessarily make it so.

To all you global warmers, follow the dollar signs. There's a pile of money to be made here, making our planet safe and you notice the line starting to get lengthy. Time and time again, if you repeat the story enough times and it becomes accepted fact.

As for the ice age theory in the 60's and 70's and today's thoughtless response "Theories are often wrong in the early stages - it's part of the process," how do we know we have the true direction here? The scientists were just as convinced we were headed for perma-frost back then.

I agree with Dusty. Where were our autos and smokestacks 10,000 years ago when the earth warmed enough to melt mile+ thick glaciers? How about the billions of tons of CO2 we humans and all the animals breathe into the air every day. We'd be pretty naive to think the we mere mortals could affect the entire vast atmosphere as much as these scients say we have.

I'm not saying we haven't contributed to the warming trend, but our climate, like it or not, has cycles. One of them, the 26,000 year sun cycle is going to complete in late 2012.

There's nothing we can do about climatic cycles. What we can do is to try and get the resource rich third world countries to leave their forests alone and help them industiralize in a cleaner way than the western nations did.

As as for the learned scientists (researchers, M.D.'s, ad nauseum), it was they and the FDA who said it was safe to treat your osteoarthritis with Vioxx, until people started dying.

For the real truth, follow the dollar signs and see whose getting rich now and who stands to get even richer in the future.

If you want a real cause try WATER!

JJ and the rest, courtesy of Don B's work last week, here are 60.

This global warming debate has waged on here several times with the Loony Leftists always asking for proof of those scientists who aren't in the global warming movement, and us skeptics provide the proof over and over. But there is that reading, comprehending, understanding problem you Loony Leftists always have!

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Some more facts for you Loony Leftists to chew on:
1. One volcanic eruption spews more CO2 into the atmosphere than does human activity in one year!
2. CO2 is a natural part of our atmosphere.
3. Earth has a history of warm cycles and cold cycles. At one time Chicago was under a 1-mile glacier.
4. Anartica was tropical at one time.
5. Ice caps on Mars are warming due ot increased solar activity. Hmmmm, could there be a correlation to solar activity and Earth?

Janet, dear, I have provided countless links to scientists, climatologists and meteorolotgists from all over the geographic U.S., including Dr. William Gray, perhaps the world's best meterologist of the University of Colorado.

But the Loony Left bozos discount anyone that disagrees with your hysteria. I have heard both sides of the argument and went from a global warming believer to a skeptic. Reading, researching, thinking do actually work, Loony Lefters! Try it sometime!

John D:
Thanks for re-posting Don B's list. Where does it come from? How do I know these people thing global warming is a hoax or that they even exist? What I see here is a list of people's names & titles that someone else put together with no links or any other type of collaboration. Looked up Don B's post & see that he also didn't provide any proof as to the validity of his list & that no one else asked him for it here:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/environment/index.html
Why is it that you implicitly believe in Don B's list without any real proof but you automatically seem to disbelieve anyone who's point of view differs from your own? Isn't that what some would call a sign of one's own bias? Come on John show me some real proof about your 'thousands'

John D,
You are missing the point. We "global warmers" could post many more than 60 scientists who are in "the global warming movement." Probably thousands. And these scientists would not dispute your 5 facts for us to chew on.

The point is that the levels of CO2 are increasing at exponentially faster rates every year, especially in fast-developing Asia and these emissions HAVE and WILL continue to contribute to global warming. Barring some unexplained global cooling, these emissions will further melt polar caps, raising sea levels and destroying homes and habitats and lives and costing billions (or trillions). Imagine Katrina at many various coastal regions globally. That is why we need to cut CO2. Not for us, but for many generations from now...

Thanks Phil and John D -

JJ - you have yet to explain how a one mile thick glacier that covered a lot of Canada and the northern US melted. How many cars were on the road ten thousand years ago, plus or minus a few years.

I love it when the Chicken Littles warn us that the earth could get as warm as it was fifteen hundred years ago - that's a real riot.

The globalwarmers just can't see the internal contradictions in their argument.

It just seems that the facts don't count anymore. And if the facts get in the way of an argument - they are ignored.

Please explain how the fossils of leaves are found in the arctic. It is cold up there - but now getting warmer they say - but how many cars were on the road a few million years ago, plus or minus a few hundred million?

"I really wonder what gives us the right to wreck this poor planet of ours."

JJ, I am not going to do all the work for you. Google those people's names and find out for yourself. As I noted last week, I have interviewed Fred Singer (on the list) a few times. Also, as noted, Professor Singer was the first of many scientists, studies, etc. that began my evolution from global warming believer to global warming skeptic. You see, JJ, I have done much homework and I've read much and heard much on both sides of the global warming spectrum.

Ask yourself this question, JJ and AJP, for that matter: We are constantly being told the dire circumstances of global warming and that we must do things not today, but yesterday. Yet, countries such as China and India are exempted from any Kyoto Protocol requirements because they are considered "third world." If we are in such a dire situation, why are they exempted? Why not nip it in the bud? why not get them to use clean energies today and not decades from now?

Also, let's examine Europe and refrigerants. Europe is vehemently against HFCs (refrigerant with no chlorine so ozone-depleting potential, but they do have so-called global warming potential). HCFC-134a does have chlorine, but such small amounts that its ozone-depleting potential is nearly nil, yet HCFCs are being phased out in the next 20 years. But HCFC-134a has NO global warming potential. Now Europe is boasting the use of propane as a refrigerant -- no ozone depletion and no global warming potential. However, as we know, propane is highly volatile. JJ and AJP, are you two willing to have propane tanks in your homes to keep the items in your refrigerator and freezer cold?

Thanks to John D.
Of course you could post 600, 6000 or 60000 scientists and
you would not sway the true believers. After all, if a hack
politician says it is so, it must be so!

Thanks Phil and John D -

JJ - you have yet to explain how a one mile thick glacier that covered a lot of Canada and the northern US melted. How many cars were on the road ten thousand years ago, plus or minus a few years.

I love it when the Chicken Littles warn us that the earth could get as warm as it was fifteen hundred years ago - that's a real riot.

The globalwarmers just can't see the internal contradictions in their argument.

It just seems that the facts don't count anymore. And if the facts get in the way of an argument - they are ignored.

Please explain how the fossils of leaves are found in the arctic. It is cold up there - but now getting warmer they say - but how many cars were on the road a few million years ago, plus or minus a few hundred million?

Posted by: Dusty | Apr 12, 2007 2:12:21 PM

Dusty... quit being a jacka$$... these arguments are like someone arguing that we shouldn't worry about nuclear war because it was an asteroid that whiped out the Dinosaurs....

All the things you say are true, but they have no bearing on why we should be concerned about Global Warming. And I have enough respect for your intelligence to hope that you know the difference and are just pushing a specious argument for the sake of being a devil's advocate.

(and by the way... there's warm weather fossils found in the Arctic because that land was once by the equator and plate tectonics moved it... not because it was once warm at the poles...

And there were no cars plus or minus a few hundred million years ago. Happy?).

Thanks Phil and John D -

JJ - you have yet to explain how a one mile thick glacier that covered a lot of Canada and the northern US melted. How many cars were on the road ten thousand years ago, plus or minus a few years.

I love it when the Chicken Littles warn us that the earth could get as warm as it was fifteen hundred years ago - that's a real riot.

The globalwarmers just can't see the internal contradictions in their argument.

It just seems that the facts don't count anymore. And if the facts get in the way of an argument - they are ignored.

Please explain how the fossils of leaves are found in the arctic. It is cold up there - but now getting warmer they say - but how many cars were on the road a few million years ago, plus or minus a few hundred million?

Posted by: Dusty | Apr 12, 2007 2:12:21 PM

Let me rephrase that Dusty.. Here's how your argument basically breaks down:

"It was once really warm a long time ago and it was once really cold a long time ago. Therefore, Man isn't influencing the climate."

Nice science there, Copernicus.

"Several researchers say the cooling 8,200 years ago may have been triggered by the collapse of ice dams holding back the waters of Lake Agassiz -a vast glacial reservoir covering the Great Lakes region of the US and Canada at the end of the last ice age. It would have flushed enough fresh water into the right places in the North Atlantic to shut down the conveyor. Fresh water is more buoyant than salt water and can form a layer that blocks the circulation. The Northern Atlantic region would then cool. Reduce the fresh water, researchers say, and the reverse can happen, warming the North Atlantic region."

Dusty:
Have you ever seen an actual Natural Science book, actually opened one & read what is inside it? Tried to understand it?
Why are there fossils of leaves in the arctic? Its called plate-tectonics moron. The continents actually move & Antarctica was once on the equator.

So let me see if I can thread my way through the rest of your tortuous logic. Since there once was an ice age (actually there have been more than one) & to the best of our knowledge it ended without human intervention that somehow means humans can't have an effect on the climate since the climate has changed before? Here's a news flash for you, according to the geologic record the climate of the earth is sort of like a pendulum, going from cool to hot & back again over & over again over thousand of years. According to that geologic record we should actually be in a cooling period not a warming period. I could go on & try to explain in greater detail but I suspect most of this is going over your head or your simply refusing to see the forest for the trees.

Dearest Dave -

Thank you for your insightful argument - it all makes sense now.

But you have not explained how a mile thick glacier melted some 10,000 years ago. No recent plate tectonics here. No automobiles or smokestacks then, either.

Oh, and name calling is one of the surest ways to indentify the holder of a very weak argument based on emotion, rather than reason. You betrayed yourself.

You see, real scientific thought is not emotional but dispassionate. Scientific thought puts all of the cards on the table - that is the only way to find the truth. It is almost universally acknowledged that a person can't think clearly when he is all worked up emotionally.

And besides - where is the center of the universe - if it is infinite? Or are we all inside a glass globe on God's coffee table. Big glass globe, heh. Some "scientists" claim that they are almost able to see the edge of the universe - then where are we? And then what is outside the universe? The idea of infinite is very interesting.

And oh, glad to have met you - it is always a pleasure to meet a person who knows everything.

I'd vote for the inventor of the internet. In the 8 years since he was in politics I've realized I miss his grandiose sense of self-importance. Who else can save us from total planetary meltdown like Algore?

How do we know we have the true direction now? Normally the scientific method is applied and over some period of time a model capable of making accurate predictions concerning the physical system in question is developed. It's hard to argue with a theory that has been thouroughly tested and found to be consistently accurate.

But global warming is tricky because there are numerous nasty time constants involved (not to mention little control over most variables). A changes today and it may not have a statistically relevant effect on B for another 20 years. Furthermore, A can also change C, F, and G. These related variables also change B, H, and A. Even with this amazing complexity folks have developed pretty good computer models over the past 30 years that are doing a good job of predicting global temperature (in the short term) as a function of (among other things) atmospheric CO2 concentration (easily measurable). It's early and it will certainly take more time to show that the models are spot on.

So should we wait until we have a model that can account for every single variable and has highly accurate predictive power? As a physicist I say yes. Let's monitor the concentrations of all relevant atmospheric gases (and their sources) and see what happens. Afterall, even without humans the global climate will change as a result of other factors.

But as a human being I say no. We have more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before (375 ppm - higher than at any other time in the observed geological record). The industrialized world makes lots of CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases induce climate change. And to be clear, this is what the majority of scientists agree with.

Oh, and as for the moderating global temperatures during earlier ice ages - the combustion of fossil fuels is not the only source of greenhouse gas. There's excellent evidence for a methane explosion during the late Paleocene. This is just one example.

Dusty,
Some scientists usings scientific instruments drilled into the Arctic ice sheet. Guess what they've discovered? When ice was formed at temperatures nearer to the freezing point, high levels of CO2 were found in those core samples. When ice formed at temperatures much lower than the freezing temperature, lower levels of CO2 were found. I wonder if there is any naturally occurring event that would cause a large amount of CO2 to be belched into the atmosphere which would cause heat to be trapped. Probably would trap more heat than usual becuase CO2 breathing vegetation would be in low supply during a glacial period. Oh wait, Johnny D says that volcanoes spew CO2 into atmosphere. There may not have been cars on the planet back then but there was probably a lot of volcanic activity. Do you think that may have been a possible explanation??

A primer for the criminally stupid:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.pewclimate.org/

Get back to us after you have read and comprehended all of it.

6 out of 10 Americans don't like to see Al Gore for 2006, and it is simple as that?? Roughly 5 our of 10 should be republican (These 5 should be in that 6 because, anyways, Republicans would answer that they don't want to see him again), and 4 (or 5) out of these 5 are probably more afraid for him to run for Preisident in 2008 than not wanting him as Presidential candidate in 2008. So a proper conclusion is that if Al Gore runs, he has a pretty good chance to win this time. That is what Republicans are afraid of now.

And the Viking settlements in Greenland (where they farmed, ego temperate climate) were originally at the equator too! Oh, I forgot, that naming it Greenland was just to lure gullible Viking tourists

Dearest Dave & JJ -

Please read your blogs again - plate tectonics and all of that stuff - seems things change - or did someone haul the North American Continent to the north pole some hundred million years ago with his SUV?

Your arguments are shot thorough with internal contradictions - you are looking at the forest and not seeing the trees - your own argument stated that things change - continents move.

Wow!!!!!!!

Congratulations on your discovery!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, I have read some stuff in science class - please state for us your earth science credentials.

I don't want to inject myself into you guys' never-ending global warming debate, but it seems that there's at least disagreement in the scientific community. Here's an article where Dr. William Gray, the most accurate predictor of hurricanes over the last 24 years in the World and an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, calls Al Gore an alarmist in regards to global warming. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns.

Seems to me that the evidence certainly doesn't call for a cut-off of debate at this point. The only people saying their theories of why the Earth is warming are so right is because they just KNOW the other side is wrong. Sounds like the exact reason WHY the debate should continue.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

John D:
Do you mean this S. Fred Singer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1
The same guy who founded this company?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%26_Environmental_Policy_Project
Lets just ignore that he was once paid by the tobacco industry to debunk any bad effects from 2nd hand smoking or that he admitted (in court) to being paid by the oil industry to refute climate change but than latter said he wasn't. Lets just stick with the facts.

This guy believes that the worlds glaciers are actually growing, not retreating or has he changed his mind on that one? This is your big expert? I always wondered why you automatically believed anything the Great Divider & his partner, Darth Cheney said. Now I begin to understand.

Dearest Dave & JJ -

Please read your blogs again - plate tectonics and all of that stuff - seems things change - or did someone haul the North American Continent to the north pole some hundred million years ago with his SUV?

Your arguments are shot thorough with internal contradictions - you are looking at the forest and not seeing the trees - your own argument stated that things change - continents move.

Wow!!!!!!!

Congratulations on your discovery!!!!!!!!!!

And yes, I have read some stuff in science class - please state for us your earth science credentials.

Posted by: Dusty Copernicus | Apr 12, 2007 3:32:41 PM

Dusty... the problem is, these things you are stating are not "internal contradictions" to Global Warming theory. Yes... things have changed in the past (including climate). That in no way is contradictory to today's Global Warming theory.

No scientist studying global warming today is conducting his research under the auspices that "these hypothesis are wholly dependant on the Earth being exactly as it is today for all of geographic history".

And besides - where is the center of the universe - if it is infinite? Or are we all inside a glass globe on God's coffee table. Big glass globe, heh. Some "scientists" claim that they are almost able to see the edge of the universe - then where are we? And then what is outside the universe? The idea of infinite is very interesting.

Posted by: Dusty Copernicus | Apr 12, 2007 3:13:14 PM

One more thing Dusty... These are Philosophical questions. You can't discredit science with philosophical questions. You should really learn the difference.

Dusty Copernicus,
Please explain to the classroom how it is logical to believe that when you add heat trapping gases such as CO2, a byproduct of human activity, into the atmosphere MORE heat would NOT be trapped???

I don't want to inject myself into you guys' never-ending global warming debate, but it seems that there's at least disagreement in the scientific community. Here's an article where Dr. William Gray, the most accurate predictor of hurricanes over the last 24 years in the World and an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, calls Al Gore an alarmist in regards to global warming. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns.

Seems to me that the evidence certainly doesn't call for a cut-off of debate at this point. The only people saying their theories of why the Earth is warming are so right is because they just KNOW the other side is wrong. Sounds like the exact reason WHY the debate should continue.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070407/D8OBK1DG0.html

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 12, 2007 3:33:58 PM

Jeff... I don't think anybody is saying that there isn't disagreement within the scientific community. There always will be on this subject. I don't claim to KNOW that global warming is correct. But I do know that enough smart people have looked into it and think it's a distinct possibility to convince me that maybe we should start looking into ways to reduce how much pollutant we're dumping into the atmosphere.

John D,

Careful what you wish for.

A five minute google search on Fred Singer has produced the following:

Co-sponsor of the 1995 Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change which was a petition signed by "scientists" from around the world claiming greenhouse gasses were not causing climate change. Out of more than 100 "scientists", less than 20 are able to be verified. An updated list provided 14 more "professors" that he later provided did not list their fields of study or institutions.

Contributed to the National Center For Policy Analysis where he received $390,900 from ExxonMobil and later denies any connection to big oil.

A member of the Cato Institue and the Heritage Foundation, both who have contributed millions to big oil.

Chief reviewer for the Alexis de Tocueville Institution that attacked EPA regulations on tobacco smoke in 1994, claiming there is no connection between cigarette smoke and lung cancer. Was involved in the "Whitecoats Project" that produced two fraudulent science gatherings.

So, John D, you were enlightened to global warming skepticism by a lying, fabricating quack with ties to big oil and who questions the relationship between cigarette smoke and lung cancer.

Priceless.

Jeff,

Here is what Dr. Gray's peers have to say:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

This is pretty depressing stuff. Apparently, according to John D and Dusty, man-made global warming is an impossibility because the Earth's climate naturally fluctuates between warmer and cooler periods, for reasons we don't entirely understand.

So I guess by that logic, humans have never started a forest fire since forest fires often result from lightning strikes. We've also never flooded anything since floods can occur naturally. And as another poster pointed out, I guess it's impossible for us to cause a mass extinction with our nuclear weapons since we know nature has done so herself in the past. (Just as there were no SUVs during the last Ice Age, there were no nukes during the Permian or the Cretaceous.) Boy, that's a relief! I thought those nukes were dangerous, silly me!

Maybe, Dusty, the fact that a mile-thick glacier recently covered northern North America shows that the earth's climate dangerous and we shouldn't be screwing around with it? Things can change quickly on this planet, but they take thousands or millions of years to reset -- alot longer than our civilization has to wait. I, for one, don't really want to find out what happens when our CO2 emissions cause the Greenland ice sheet to melt into the Gulf Stream. Good thing some hack "scientist" tells me not to worry about it!

Bubba and his left wing smear blogs.

Here is some REAL info on Professor Singer:
http://www.sepp.org/about%20sepp/bios/singer/biosfs.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
Or here is Roy Soencer, of course you Loony Leftists discount him too:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02262007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/not_that_simple_opedcolumnists_roy_w__spencer.htm?page=0

Sorry Loons, you can attack all the scientists, climatologists and meteorologists you want (Tom Skilling is not on the global warming bandwagon either), fact remains there are thousands who say otherwise.

You just lost what could've been an ally, Bubba. ALL of his peers don't say that. To suggest that the entire scientific community speaks as a monolith is ridiculous. Scientists disagree on many things, not just what we should do about global warming

Dave,

I agree we should certainly be looking at ways to reduce the amount of pollutants we dump into the atmosphere, global warming or no. And I don't for one second dispute that global warming is occurring. I'm just saying let's not rush to judgement in institutionalizing what could be draconian policies without the required evidence. The debate we're having is a good one, I just get concerned about the alarmist tone of a lot of the evidence we're supposed to just swallow whole while ignoring other evidence.

Meestar Bubba, sir,

You keeps de-thonging zee Jean Dee in pubic, yet he jus geeps goming back for zee more an zee more.

I sure hope the phony halfwit runs again. This two faced loser is a clown and afraid of true debate.

John D:
Thanks for including the REAL info on S. Fred Singer. Thought it was kind of funny it came straight from his companies web site. Did you know where he gets his funding for his anti-global warming non-profit company? The Reverend Sung Myung Moon's Unification Church?
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html

The PBS interview was interesting but why did you only link to his interview? This link shows all of the people that PBS interviews, both pro & con
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/

Tom Skilling isn't on the global warming bandwagon?
http://blogs.trb.com/news/weather/weblog/wgnweather/2006/09/global_ice_age_vs_global_warmi.html

''The thing about Gore is that you know, at the very least, that he believes in the principles he espouses on the campaign trail or in his movies and books...''

Does he really?

Gore has stated many times that globaloney will cause an imminent planetary catastrophe within the next ten years, and that everyone who cares about the planet must do everything he/she can do to prevent it.

Does the Gorebot actually believe his own snake oil?

Apparently not, because he hasn't done much of anything on a personal level to combat globaloney. He only tells other people they have to sacrifice.

And ''carbon credits''? What kind of a grifter's scam is that?? When the Goron was accused of burning up tons of jet fuel in his incessant jaunts, he suddenly announced he was starting to purchase ''carbon offset credits''. Then it came to light that Gore was buying the credits from a company he personally owns; taking the money out of one pocket and putting it into the other.

What a guy. Run, Al, run!!

Wow, there are some strong opinions here. So as I read it our our options are:

1. Recognize global warming MAY be a threat and adjust behavior accordingly.
- OR -
2. Insist that global warming is DEFINITLY not a threat and continue current behavior.

Which is the lower risk approach? Which considers long term interests? How is this even an argument?!?!

Dave,

I agree we should certainly be looking at ways to reduce the amount of pollutants we dump into the atmosphere, global warming or no. And I don't for one second dispute that global warming is occurring. I'm just saying let's not rush to judgement in institutionalizing what could be draconian policies without the required evidence. The debate we're having is a good one, I just get concerned about the alarmist tone of a lot of the evidence we're supposed to just swallow whole while ignoring other evidence.

Posted by: Jeff | Apr 12, 2007 4:58:18 PM

Jeff...

Agreed.

Hell, he already WON ONCE!!! I say Run, Al, run! I would vote for him...AGAIN!

These attacks on Al seem a bit irrational and petty. Fear does crazy things to people...

"I miss his grandiose sense of self-importance"...
BWAHAHAHA! Why is that? Little Lord Pissypants has enough EGO to last this country a lifetime. No need to miss Al. He'll be back. Count on it.

I for one would love see Al run. It would be nice to increase the odds of another four years of a GOP president.

So if AlGore does run, how will he bribe Illinois voters to get to the polls--carbon offsets for use on the Tri-State? How many Priuses will be delivered to the Democratic Party for rounding up voters? Goodness, you can at best only fit a driver and a small bichon frise in one of those. Ah, well, it's Illinois, that counts as 8 votes for the Democrats. Call it an "offset" of you know, Reputhuglikkkan vote rigging.

It's a shame so many baseball games have been canceled this year due to global warming...actually, part of me hopes that Algore does become President, so that he can throw out the first pitch (like a girl) of a Nationals game that gets snowed out. Because. God. Hates. Al. Gore.

Scientist have stated the Earth has had at least 2 global warmings before humans came. Not a lie Paul. You sound overmedicated! This is a scam, plain and simple. 50 years ago they told us an Ice Age was comming. There is no way to measure temps. from now back to millions of years ago. Everyone should do their share of conserving water and cleaning up behind themselves. Be prepared to pay more for food and clothes and the air you breath may be taxed. Al Gore will be a very very rich man, and he doesn't have to play by the rules.

RUN AL, RUN!

JJ, please read Skilling's item on global warming again. Hardly seems like a ringing endorsement. JJ, this may help you too: Please define the word THEORY!

Smokey,
Al Gore flies commercial. If he is flying from NY to L.A. he gets on a flight w/ regular people. Smokey, what that means is whether Al Gore is on the flight, there is always a plane flying from NY to L.A. Do you know the difference between 100 vehicles carrying 1 passenger in each vehicle traveling from Point A to Point B and 1 vehicle carrying 100 people from Point A to Point B?

I am a Dem who is very unhappy with the current Dem crop of candidates. I would vote for Gore in the primary if he ran. Hate to think that I might sit out a presidential primary, and the vote GOP if one of the current crop wins. So I say, go Gore go!

Phil:
Love your post. Simple & to the point.

John D:
You said Skilling wasn't on the bandwagon. Now I don't know if admitting that it is happening puts him on the bandwagon or not but that was all I could find on him either pro or con so can you show me something else?

Definition of Theory? I could tell to Google it for your self & to do your own research, like you told me yesterday but I'll take pity on you. Here's what Dictionary.com says:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory&x=0&y=0

Or maybe it was the angle that Global Warming is actually a Theory that you were angling for? Quick heads up for you bright boy, pretty much everything in Science is a Theory. In case you haven't noticed they still call it the Theory of Gravity. Most people seem to believe in gravity but to scientists its still just a Theory. Is Global warming still a theory? Yes. Is the jury still out on man having an effect? Yes. Is it possible the S. Fred Singer is right & the vast majority is wrong? Yes. The difference between you & me is that you have already made your judgment on global warming & have etched your position in stone.

Can I borrow the tortuous logic you usually employ to assail the 'loony left'? Since you believe so strongly in S. Fred Singer then you must also believe in the Reverend Sung Myung Moon since Mr. Singer believes in the Rev enough to accept his money?

BTW: I've always wondered just who is in the 'loony left'? Is it any one who isn't a Republican? Or is it more flexible than that? Like is only people who consider themselves 'Conservative'? Is that social or economic conservatives? How about people who just lean conservative? How about those that go both ways? Or is it simply anyone who disagrees with your personal point of view? Or is it even simpler than that & you get to personally pick & choose who is & who isn't in the 'loony left'?

JJ, I'll bite.
Loony Left: those unwilling and incapanble of listening to or understanding anything that counters what they think. They believe George Bush is Satan, that he "stole" two elections, that he knocked down the World Trade Center towers, that there was a missle and not a plane that hit the Pentagon, that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania, that everything Bush does is wrong and evil, that all conservatives are evil, that wealth should be redistributed, that someone should lose their job because they said something stupid, that are hypocritical between what they say and do, that think Joe Lieberman is a "fake Democrat," that anyone to the right of far left is a right-wing goof, that believe the government is the answer to all things in this world, who call terrorists "freedom fighters" and "no different than American revolutionaries," that worry more about the safety of some terrorist thug than they do their fellow citizen, that believe Castro and Venezual